|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 6, 2015 14:39:44 GMT -5
For those who get three strikes by April 2016, will the refresh be an opportunity to start over? Anyone know? No, there's no start over until there is a completely new register. But unless they start keeping three strikers off certs entirely, which they did starting in Feb 2012 under the former register, an agency can still consider someone with three strikes if they choose to. People with three strikes have been hired in the past.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Nov 6, 2015 14:45:43 GMT -5
Keep in mind that the conventional wisdom w/r/t three strikes is next to useless under the single-city cert process currently being used.
I can see a situation where someone only has the most "popular" cities on their GAL and shows up on every cert round, but is not truly reachable or is blocked by someone who stalls the process (declines an offer, thereby freezing any city cert on which he or she is in the top 3).
Channel Yogi Berra, people.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Nov 6, 2015 14:56:21 GMT -5
loving all the WAGS today!!! i'd agree on 600, i thought maybe even down in the 200's given hiring issues but since hiring is due to small GAL's rather than only a handful of people still left, 600 makes more sense.
anyway, there are obviously not too many left or i and several hundred others would never have gotten that email in August. what bothers me is that there are some very qualified people with wide GAL's still left. but i guess that is why it is puzzle palace.
|
|
|
Post by beenlurking on Nov 6, 2015 15:13:33 GMT -5
Keep in mind that the conventional wisdom w/r/t three strikes is next to useless under the single-city cert process currently being used. I can see a situation where someone only has the most "popular" cities on their GAL and shows up on every cert round, but is not truly reachable or is blocked by someone who stalls the process (declines an offer, thereby freezing any city cert on which he or she is in the top 3). Channel Yogi Berra, people. How would someone who declined an offer "block" a cert? Wouldn't they just move on to the next candidate? I would like to know as well, and, I'm sure its been discussed before but what exactly is the difference between a "single-city cert process" versus, what, a "multiple-city cert process?"
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Nov 6, 2015 15:20:49 GMT -5
Keep in mind that the conventional wisdom w/r/t three strikes is next to useless under the single-city cert process currently being used. I can see a situation where someone only has the most "popular" cities on their GAL and shows up on every cert round, but is not truly reachable or is blocked by someone who stalls the process (declines an offer, thereby freezing any city cert on which he or she is in the top 3). Channel Yogi Berra, people. How would someone who declined an offer "block" a cert? Wouldn't they just move on to the next candidate? If the second and third choice are not desirable, there would be no selection.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Nov 6, 2015 16:26:40 GMT -5
How would someone who declined an offer "block" a cert? Wouldn't they just move on to the next candidate? I would like to know as well, and, I'm sure its been discussed before but what exactly is the difference between a "single-city cert process" versus, what, a "multiple-city cert process?" In March of 2014 we got wind that the cert process was changing to single city certificates of eligibles. That means that when ODAR requests a list of eligible candidates for Akron and Baltimore and Charleston they get a list for each city. As I understand it under the previous system they would have gotten a list with the candidates for all three cities on it. Apparently, that would have allowed greater flexibility in moving from city to city for hiring. I will say that I have never exactly understood the ways it would be different. Here is a thread where this topic was beaten into glue. I specifically, link it to the first notification of the single city cert. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/post/51594/thread
|
|
|
Post by beenlurking on Nov 6, 2015 16:31:36 GMT -5
I would like to know as well, and, I'm sure its been discussed before but what exactly is the difference between a "single-city cert process" versus, what, a "multiple-city cert process?" In March of 2014 we got wind that the cert process was changing to single city certificates of eligibles. That means that when ODAR requests a list of eligible candidates for Akron and Baltimore and Charleston they get a list for each city. As I understand it under the previous system they would have gotten a list with the candidates for all three cities on it. Apparently, that would have allowed greater flexibility in moving from city to city for hiring. I will say that I have never exactly understood the ways it would be different. Here is a thread where this topic was beaten into glue. I specifically, link it to the first notification of the single city cert. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/post/51594/threadYes, that sounds like fuzzy logic and way to much for my small brain not to fry!!!
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Nov 6, 2015 22:36:50 GMT -5
How would someone who declined an offer "block" a cert? Wouldn't they just move on to the next candidate? If the second and third choice are not desirable, there would be no selection. From what I understand, ODAR cannot move to the next candidate until they get an answer. If someone who is on cities A, B, C is offered City C and declines, he will not be given another offer during that round. So if making offers in cities A and B were contingent on getting him out of the way by hiring him into City C, a declination means that he would continue to block any other candidates in cities A and B. Make sense?
|
|
|
Post by aljwishhope on Nov 7, 2015 1:56:07 GMT -5
I have read threads regarding selection process. It baffles my mind as to how persons who are not desirable are continually among the top 3 to the exclusion of desirable candidates. Given all of the testing and scrutiny of applicants what characteristics could they have that make them undesirable for ODAR yet at the same time these characteristics do not lower their scores so that they are not among the top 3. Are we talking agency mismatch? For example candidate Snoopy has a score of 99 and has all the experience in the world in subject matter unrelated to ODAR but no desire to do ODAR work or there is candidate Lucy with a score of 94 who has extensive ODAR . EXPERIENCE that ODAR wants to hire but cannot until they hire Snoopy elsewhere? I had a moment where I thought I was beginning to comprehend but lost it. This process just does not seem the most logical or efficient to achieve hiring goals from perspective of agency or candidate. I think candidates should choose GAL listing only places they would say yes to and should be able to select.agencies they would be willing to work at. Or dare I say ODAR (or the proper authority) should redesignate the ALJ position to hire in a different manner? Why could such not be hired through less cumbersome process such as are Administrative Patent Judges and Immigration Judges (I know there is reverse argument that APJ'S should be hired through OPM selection exam process) the 20 percent Stat for my chances noted in other threads (based on 1500 candidates for 400 plus jobs) go out the window given my very narrow GAL unless I am Snoopy. I fear I am Charlie Brown.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 7, 2015 2:47:22 GMT -5
I have read threads regarding selection process. It baffles my mind as to how persons who are not desirable are continually among the top 3 to the exclusion of desirable candidates. Given all of the testing and scrutiny of applicants what characteristics could they have that make them undesirable for ODAR yet at the same time these characteristics do not lower their scores so that they are not among the top 3. Are we talking agency mismatch? For example candidate Snoopy has a score of 99 and has all the experience in the world in subject matter unrelated to ODAR but no desire to do ODAR work or there is candidate Lucy with a score of 94 who has extensive ODAR . EXPERIENCE that ODAR wants to hire but cannot until they hire Snoopy elsewhere? I had a moment where I thought I was beginning to comprehend but lost it. This process just does not seem the most logical or efficient to achieve hiring goals from perspective of agency or candidate. I think candidates should choose GAL listing only places they would say yes to and should be able to select.agencies they would be willing to work at. Or dare I say ODAR (or the proper authority) should redesignate the ALJ position to hire in a different manner? Why could such not be hired through less cumbersome process such as are Administrative Patent Judges and Immigration Judges (I know there is reverse argument that APJ'S should be hired through OPM selection exam process) the 20 percent Stat for my chances noted in other threads (based on 1500 candidates for 400 plus jobs) go out the window given my very narrow GAL unless I am Snoopy. I fear I am Charlie Brown. Someone who doesn't want to work at ODAR shouldn't do the paperwork and come in for an interview. That takes them out of the process and leaves room for the next person. Having three struck people "in the way" is why ODAR started asking for them to be left off the lists back in 2012 with the old register. No reason why they couldn't do that now, too. Hope they don't, but they can.
|
|
|
Post by aljwishhope on Nov 7, 2015 7:33:40 GMT -5
Thanks 71 refresh. Maybe this will be clearer upon making the register and getting on a cert. But say your GAL includes DC because you want to be an ALJ at DOT DC you get on cert.for DC. Get called for interview for ODAR DC but knowing you want to work at.DOT you.do not send in paperwork or interview. Does this NO to ODAR take you out of contention for city not agency cert for.DC? So that you now having said NO to a DC.job have no chance of being on cert for ALJ DOT DC? Or is it only a.NO for purposes of being struck or not.considered further for a.city if you actually send in paperwork and interview?
|
|
|
Post by aljwishhope on Nov 7, 2015 7:44:21 GMT -5
It seems too that the objection to highest scoring candidates is used more routinely than contemplated by rules or statute. As usual thanks for this Board so that I am not totally fumbling.around in the dark. Testing then score and then maybe it will become clearer.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Nov 7, 2015 8:08:19 GMT -5
It seems too that the objection to highest scoring candidates is used more routinely than contemplated by rules or statute. As usual thanks for this Board so that I am not totally fumbling.around in the dark. Testing then score and then maybe it will become clearer. yeah too stressful of a process for unnecc. fumbling. Glad board has helped you with that.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Nov 7, 2015 9:04:35 GMT -5
It seems too that the objection to highest scoring candidates is used more routinely than contemplated by rules or statute. As usual thanks for this Board so that I am not totally fumbling.around in the dark. Testing then score and then maybe it will become clearer. It isn't the high score the agency doesn't like, it is the unknown candidate with the high score. The agency has more than occasionally been burned by a high scoring candidate, who had been very successful in his prior field, but was not suited to the job of hearing and deciding cases for the agency. Remember that OPM assigns the NOR (sore) after the candidate proceeds through testing designed by OPM. The agency has its own criteria for deciding who would make a good judge, totally uninfluenced by the OPM testing process, and irrespective of the resulting OPM score. The agency is no different from other employers making a hiring decision. In the private sector, most employers will promote from within rather than hire from the outside as they are getting a known entity. The agency wants the known entity over the unknown high scorer. For a number of reasons, agency attorneys are frequently assigned lower scores than those from the outside. Also, it seems you may be confused about the high scorer blocking the cert for candidates with lower scores. Not so. The agency may hire any of the top three candidates on the certificate, unless a qualified veteran has a higher score than a non veteran. But that is a discussion for another day. Pix. Hope this clarifies more than it confuses. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by beenlurking on Nov 7, 2015 9:25:50 GMT -5
It seems too that the objection to highest scoring candidates is used more routinely than contemplated by rules or statute. As usual thanks for this Board so that I am not totally fumbling.around in the dark. Testing then score and then maybe it will become clearer. It isn't the high score the agency doesn't like, it is the unknown candidate with the high score. The agency has more than occasionally been burned by a high scoring candidate, who had been very successful in his prior field, but was not suited to the job of hearing and deciding cases for the agency. Remember that OPM assigns the NOR (sore) after the candidate proceeds through testing designed by OPM. The agency has its own criteria for deciding who would make a good judge, totally uninfluenced by the OPM testing process, and irrespective of the resulting OPM score. The agency is no different from other employers making a hiring decision. In the private sector, most employers will promote from within rather than hire from the outside as they are getting a known entity. The agency wants the known entity over the unknown high scorer. For a number of reasons, agency attorneys are frequently assigned lower scores than those from the outside. Also, it seems you may be confused about the high scorer blocking the cert for candidates with lower scores. Not so. The agency may hire any of the top three candidates on the certificate, unless a qualified veteran has a higher score than a non veteran. But that is a discussion for another day. Pix. Hope this clarifies more than it confuses. Pix. Thanks Pixie it does clarify more. However, can you elaborate on the "number of reasons agency attorneys are frequently assigned lower scores than this from the outside?" Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Nov 7, 2015 9:27:55 GMT -5
In OPM's world, ALJs are fungible. Once a person is "qualified" under OPM's standards, he or she can become an ALJ in any federal agency that uses ALJs. When an agency requests a slate of candidates, OPM sends the next ones on the list, in NOR order. But, as we all know, some people are better qualified for some agencies than others. The list of candidates that OPM sends is only according to NOR, with no regard to experience or special training. Since most agencies do not hire for multiple positions, they only get a few candidates to interview. Because those agencies are looking for more qualifications, the Register process is not useful for them -- they need to find the candidates with relevant experience and training. So many of these agencies will only hire sitting ALJs. That makes the agencies that do hire from the Register the gatekeepers of ALJs. The biggest gatekeeper is SSA. And like other agencies, SSA wants to hire people who will fit into the organization the best, and so does its own vetting. As Pixie said, SSA doesn't care about OPM rankings, SSA has its own predictors of what factors make a successfull ALJ. But SSA still has to work within the framework mandated by OPM. For people on the Register, or hoping to get on the Register, this is a frustrating process. You are high achievers. You're used to getting what you want. But this is a different process from what you may be used to. Try not to take it personally.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Nov 7, 2015 9:42:53 GMT -5
BeenLurking: OPM assigns the scores. It sees outside litigation/judicial experience as more desirable in an ALJ than experience in writing decisions for the SSA.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Nov 7, 2015 9:46:33 GMT -5
My understanding is that, if a candidate turns down an offer, his/her name is not on the next cert for that location. It's similar to when a candidate tells SSA they are declining to be considered for a city. It seems to me that blocking most likely results from the rule of three by itself when SSA makes no offers to anyone in the top three. When a candidate declines to be considered for a city, the candidate's GAL will not include that city going forward. If a candidate declines two job offers, the candidate will be off the register for a year.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 7, 2015 13:43:11 GMT -5
Thanks 71 refresh. Maybe this will be clearer upon making the register and getting on a cert. But say your GAL includes DC because you want to be an ALJ at DOT DC you get on cert.for DC. Get called for interview for ODAR DC but knowing you want to work at.DOT you.do not send in paperwork or interview. Does this NO to ODAR take you out of contention for city not agency cert for.DC? So that you now having said NO to a DC.job have no chance of being on cert for ALJ DOT DC? Or is it only a.NO for purposes of being struck or not.considered further for a.city if you actually send in paperwork and interview? Saying no to an ODAR interview does nothing to your status with another agency. Going through the process and getting an offer for DC that you turn down takes DC off your list.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 7, 2015 13:48:47 GMT -5
My understanding is that, if a candidate turns down an offer, his/her name is not on the next cert for that location. It's similar to when a candidate tells SSA they are declining to be considered for a city. It seems to me that blocking most likely results from the rule of three by itself when SSA makes no offers to anyone in the top three. If SSA decides not to fill a slot in a city, that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone on that cert got "bona fide consideration" which is required to pick up a strike. If they decide not to fill a slot for reasons having nothing to do with who is in the top group on the cert for that city, it's no harm, no foul. And, with the multi cert system, that same top group could be at the top of multiple certs, depending on their GALs.
|
|